Social Security, or Socialist Insecurity?

CoachR64

Awesome, with a side order of amazing
Jul 2, 2007
7,292
673
45
Oklahoma City, OK
✟25,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have no problem with helping those in need, but the system we have now is so corrupt that it is being abused way more than it is being used in a positive manner. Also, I think the churches have to shoulder some of the blame here. IF we, as churches, were doing our job meeting the needs of orphans and widows in their distress, serving "the least of these," we wouldn't seed social security.

Coach
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wren
Upvote 0

jameseb

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!
Mar 3, 2004
14,862
2,332
North Little Rock, AR
✟116,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have no problem with helping those in need, but the system we have now is so corrupt that it is being abused way more than it is being used in a positive manner. Also, I think the churches have to shoulder some of the blame here. IF we, as churches, were doing our job meeting the needs of orphans and widows in their distress, serving "the least of these," we wouldn't seed social security.

Coach


I'm not so sure the churches deserve blame. I've never conducted a survey, but I get the impression that most people don't look to churches for help, particularly given our ever growing secular society. Even those that go to church are probably too embarrassed to ask people they see every week for help.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
A house built on demographic sand, and the tide is rising. It could have theoretically worked a bit longer IF the Boomers had more babies rather than less babies, AND the government hadn't aggressively expanded the benefits. But even then, somebody had to know that eventually, people would start having less babies, and the whole thing would come tumbling down.

As if it would even be moral to cultivate a culture of dependency by advertising a safety net for everybody, so they don't do for themselves what they ought to do for themselves. That's how you get the people weak and dependent on you.

I'm not so sure the churches deserve blame. I've never conducted a survey, but I get the impression that most people don't look to churches for help, particularly given our ever growing secular society. Even those that go to church are probably too embarrassed to ask people they see every week for help.

It works the other way around. The greater the welfare state, the lesser the church attendance, and as welfare state spending goes up, religious charity goes down.

God Will Provide -- Unless the Government Gets There First - WSJ.com
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
50
✟22,709.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
A house built on demographic sand, and the tide is rising. It could have theoretically worked a bit longer IF the Boomers had more babies rather than less babies, AND the government hadn't aggressively expanded the benefits. But even then, somebody had to know that eventually, people would start having less babies, and the whole thing would come tumbling down.
Or tax money progressively instead of putting a cap on it.

As if it would even be moral to cultivate a culture of dependency by advertising a safety net for everybody, so they don't do for themselves what they ought to do for themselves. That's how you get the people weak and dependent on you.
I don't see a problem with ensuring minimumiving standards. If someone is fine with the minimum, more power to them. Sounds pretty crappy to me, though.



It works the other way around. The greater the welfare state, the lesser the church attendance, and as welfare state spending goes up, religious charity goes down.

God Will Provide -- Unless the Government Gets There First - WSJ.com
Corrolation does not equal causation. It could well be that the churches quit giving and these governments stepped in rather than the other way around as presented in the article.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GQ Chris

ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers
Jan 17, 2005
21,009
1,888
Golden State
✟45,842.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
i just want to thank all those in the workfield for the food stamps. its appreciated.

Hahaha.:doh:Oh man. I guess this is why I sweat, and slave away, and labour with great distress, so that I can support those that believe that working is too much of a bother.:doh: :D
 
Upvote 0

GQ Chris

ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers
Jan 17, 2005
21,009
1,888
Golden State
✟45,842.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
How anyone can label a fund of money taken by the threat of force as "social security" is pure absurdity. Such a thing is both antisocial and completely insecure.


That posits the question are we morally obligated to support criminals, the lazy, or people who've made a lifestyle of making extremely bad decisions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GQ Chris

ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers
Jan 17, 2005
21,009
1,888
Golden State
✟45,842.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
what about people who push out children just for the welfare checks? there will always be people who abuse the system.


Certainly, that's true. And when is the state going to stop being an "enabler", probably never.
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
A ponzi scheme of forced redistribution of something (saving for the future) that people should be doing for themselves anyways.

Whatever happened to the Bush-era idea of redistributing a portion of SS taxes into private retirement investments anyway?

Certainly, that's true. And when is the state going to stop being an "enabler", probably never.

it wouldn't be America if they did.

You think America's bad? Try Europe. :eek:
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Whatever happened to the Bush-era idea of redistributing a portion of SS taxes into private retirement investments anyway?

The AARP managed to scare the Republican Congress away from passing it. Which is ironic, because they were voted out the next year anyway. It's a shame, since the Boomers would have been able to help shoulder the burden they had a major part in creating, while at their peak income.

Or tax money progressively instead of putting a cap on it.
"Progressively" adds all kinds of administrative costs and problems. But I don't agree with the cap. If we're going to have a payroll tax at all, there should be no cap. Of course, I would have liked to see the system privatized so we could eventually eliminate the payroll tax completely.

I don't see a problem with ensuring minimumiving standards. If someone is fine with the minimum, more power to them. Sounds pretty crappy to me, though.
But it fails at ensuring minimum standards, and the price we pay for having it to begin with is a dumbed-down population which is taught that they don't have to be vigilant and take care of themselves. And for a democratic republic to remain a democratic republic, the people need to be vigilant. To say nothing of the coming economic crunch that it will put on us in our lifetime.


Corrolation does not equal causation. It could well be that the churches quit giving and these governments stepped in rather than the other way around as presented in the article.
The Gruber-Hungerman study found that the New Deal spending was the likely cause of churches giving less money.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Im_A

Legend
May 10, 2004
20,111
1,494
✟35,359.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
This is a tough one for me. The economic issues that people here bring up are big concerns for me.

Yet, for everyone that is anti it, I would love to see their reactions if the government stripped all of Social Security in every way shape and form for their aging family member, or for their aging family member who is ill in health and who's treatment requires the assistance from the government. Let's try and see if all this small government, so called 'fiscal responsibility' rhetoric of nothing but fantasized purists actually stand up when they see their loved ones die quicker and suffer quicker because the money isn't there that is from the tax payers.

I don't believe there are any gods to take care what we go through, no church to take care of the ills of the world. The church as a whole, with all the denominations combined are extremely wealthy and if the excuse of actually helping humanity instead of being on their knees for humanity is, "well the government is spending more" and we get some aid and not fixes with the labels of Mary and Jesus on it and what else in all reality? Since we have to pay taxes, what reason would we have to pay taxes for unless it is getting distributed back into the country we live in? I really don't like the idea of my tax paying money sitting around in a treasure chest while good people are suffering. I don't mind my tax paying money being used for individuals who worked their entire lives hard.

Since I do have economic concerns, I can't answer at this current time about how I feel. I do not believe the world is ideal to make complete moral claims on things like this. If others do, their mind works entirely different than mine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0